issue on which no one was expressing, so far as I heard in the Senate, was expressing concern or disagreement until these hearings started. The hearings have performed a vital function in informing Senators, and also in informing the public. I heard Senator Symington take the floor of the Senate a few moments ago and expressed concern about this pending agreement. I daresay he would not have done so except for the information that has been produced in this hearing.

I know of several Senators who are now opposed to this agreement who expressed no sentiment before these hearings.

That is why I said earlier today these hearings have generated opposition. There may be some who support it who did not before these hearings. I know of none. But conversely, let me repeat, I know of many who have expressed opposition as a result of the public information that has been generated by these hearings. It doesn't satisfy this function of democracy merely that a Member of the Senate invite a Government agency into his private office to have a cup of coffee and a colloquy about the issues. Here the press gathers and they take the news to the American people. This is a part, a very vital part, of the legislative function. This is the first opportunity I have had to question the Secretary of Labor. I have been asked to yield several times by the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Louisiana. I had intended to proceed upon one other question and that is on the nature of employment in the automotive industry, and then I was going to the question of wage rates, both of which, it seems to me, are vital and important to this issue. I hope also to ask some questions of the Tariff Commission whose report I have read but which leaves a good many questions unanswered."

But if the committee wishes to close hearings without the Tariff Commission testifying, the committee has the power to do so, and I shall ask them, however, to make that a matter of formal action. I am prepared to proceed to 4 o'clock, and I, too, although I do not have to catch a plane, have constituents meeting me in my office at 4 o'clock.

Senator LONG. I will be glad to come back to accommodate the Senator.

Senator GORE. Thank you.

Mr. Secretary, what would be your estimate, with the advice of your associates here in the committee room, as to the percentage of employment of the Canadian subsidiaries of the American "Big Four" automobile concerns which are members of organized labor?

Secretary WIRTZ. I would answer that, Senator Gore, in terms of an approximation of 90 percent, correcting it for the record of subsequent advice indicates a different answer.

Senator GORE. Are most of those

Secretary WIRTZ. This would be the production workers, I assume. Senator GORE. Are most of those union memberships held in the UAW?

Secretary WIRTZ. Yes, sir.

Senator GORE. So, percentagewise, though individuals might be hurt in one instance and helped in another, an increase in parts manufactured by subsidiaries, Canadian subsidiaries of the U.S._automobile concerns and a corresponding decrease in the United States, would not adversely affect the membership in the UAW, would it?

Secretary WIRTZ. I hesitate to answer the question except in terms of the facts which you set out which included some implications about the nature of union representation which I cannot subscribe to, so I would simply have to rest on the basis of the question as I understand it to be that 90 percent of the employees involved in the Canadian subsidiaries are union members. I do not believe the implication of your question follows.

Senator GORE. Well, Mr. Secretary, what implications did you understand by the question? I had not stated any and had not intended any.

Secretary WIRTZ. Well, then in my qualification of my answer, I would have removed-let the answer stand as it was. My point, Senator, is that the United Automobile Workers certainly, like the Secretary of Labor, would not be affected in their attitude toward the issue before us by any disregard of the interests of every single worker as an individual. I just would not deal casually with the dislocation of any particular worker even though I might feel that somebody else had a job as a consequence of it, and that was the point of concern that I felt in hesitating about the answer to your question. Senator GORE. Well, thank you. I am sure all members of organized labor would subscribe to your statement, and I do not think that union leadership was casual or cold. But a substitution for a U.S. parts manufacturer of Canadian subsidiaries of American concerns whose employees are, for the sake of discussion, 90 percent organized, and a corresponding decrease in production in the United States by employees who are 75 to 80 percent union affiliates split among four unions, would not in any way diminish the total UAW membership.

I ask that or state that as a simple matter of arithmetic without implying that the UAW position had been taken on the basis of that. Secretary WIRTZ. The point is, as long as there is an arithmetical point, I have no difficulty with it.

Senator GORE. Now, going to the question of wages, are there significant differences in the wage rate paid in the various provinces in Canada?

Secretary WIRTZ. As between the provinces?

Senator GORE. Yes.

Secretary WIRTZ. I do not have any information that would suggest that difference, but we would be glad to check the record to see whether our information, which is on a Canadian basis, would show any marked differences between the provinces.

Senator GORE. Well, in this instance I would ask you to submit it for the record.

(The information referred to follows:)

TABLE 1.-United States and Canada: Average hourly earnings of production workers in all manufacturing and in motor vehicle and equipment industries, selected months, 1963-65

NOTE. The par value for the Canadian dollar, established in May 1962, is 1.08108 Canadian dollars per U.S. dollar.

Sources: "Employment and Earnings for the United States, 1909-64," Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, December 1964; "Employment and Earnings," August 1965, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor; The Labour Gazette, selected issues, 1964, official journal of the Department of Labor, Canada; "Man-Hours and Hourly Earnings," May 1965, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Department of Labour, Canada.

Secretary WIRTZ. And the question, to be sure I understand it, is whether there are marked variations, and we are talking about wages among the various Provinces.

Senator GORE. Yes. I was particularly concerned, Mr. Secretary, with the variation in wages in the outer Provinces-well, not particularly outer Provinces, but in areas removed from the DetroitAkron-Great Lakes areas the cities, towns, and communities near the automotive production centers in the United States. I would think there would tend to be less difference in wage rate than there would be, for instance, between a wage rate in Detroit and Toronto or in Ottawa or Montreal.

I may be in error about that, and if you will find that informa

tion

Secretary WIRTZ. It sounds reasonable. I would expect there would be some of that, and we will supplement the record to whatever extent it is illuminating to the extent of our information.

Senator GORE. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I am sorry that it has taken so long and that there have been so many interruptions. I believe we have finally, particularly this afternoon, gotten to the kernel of the issue here. I can agree with you that a trade war would be a most undesirable, unwelcome event between the United States and Canada. The undesirability, however, of the event does not always prevent it from occurring, and with a remission of duty scheme Canada started it.

I do not like to see the United States take a powder and then give in even further and yet claim that there is some victory involved. It seems to me a rather ignominious performance. The law required countervailing duties, and the law was not obeyed, and this is advanced in my opinion as a substitute for action which was and still is legally required. I do not wish to foreclose any comment on your part, but this concludes my questioning.

Secretary WIRTZ. My comment would be very limited. First I do have for the record now the figure which either you or Senator Hartke requested as to the increase in U.S. employment, increase in employment in the U.S. automobile industry between June 1964 and June 1965. That figure is 112,000. From January of this year to June employment increased by 43,000 workers. I would suggest that that figure, probably like the Canadian figure which was referred to, has a high seasonal factor in it, so that there would be some question as to how far it could be relied on, but that was the information that was requested, and the increase this year from January to June was 43,000.

No closing comment. I have complete respect not only for the position that has been taken but for the identification of the difference and would not mean to open up any additional discussion but only to make clear that the basis of the testimony of the administration here has been so largely in terms which you fairly referred to as comparison of the situation with what it would be absent an agreement and the kind of legislation to which we here refer, and I mean only to summarize what has already been stated as the position that we do feel quite candidly, quite sincerely, and quite strongly, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that the development of an international trade policy in the pattern of the agreement and in